Self-destructive design: Difference between revisions

(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 15:

*'''Planned obsolescence''' is the only type of self-destructive design that can be attributed as totally malicious; companies that institute planned obsolescence in their designs do so to ensure their customers buy more products. In addition invisible planned obsolescence can make consumers buy products they otherwise would not have bought with the knowledge of the dark practice.

*'''EOL''' is less likely to be malicious as it actually does provide real benefits for companies; no one expects ~~car~~ early 20th century cars to remain supported or in production in the 21st century. There is room for malicious EOL decisions with the intent to make consumers buy more products.

*'''EOL''' is less likely to be malicious as it actually does provide real benefits for companies; no one expects early 20th century cars to remain supported or in production in the 21st century. There is room for malicious EOL decisions with the intent to make consumers buy more products.

**'''Discontinuation bricking''' is also less likely to be malicious as it can occur when a company goes out of business, but for when companies just decide to take the product offline entirely it is more questionable. There is definitely room for malicious bricking incidents to occur.

Line 26:

*'''EOL''' will generate waste due to the decrease in reparability. If it becomes to expensive to repair an EOL product it becomes waste.

**'''Physical Discontinuation bricking''' usual makes repair of the the device usually makes the device harder to repair.

**'''Digital discontinuation bricking''' is even more severe in this regard due to dependence on remote servers, most consumers will not build their own server architecture for the sake of running a digital app or device.

**'''Digital discontinuation bricking''' is even more severe in this regard due to dependence on remote servers, most consumers will not build their own server architecture for the sake of running a digital app or device. Additionally for the small subset of consumers that would be interested, they are rendered incapable of doing so since these servers often will use proprietary software, which often is not publicly accessible for personal usage.

The result of self-destructive design is an inevitable harm to the environment even though many companies claim to be "sustainable" while engaging in the practice.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250128190650/https://www.apple.com/environment/ Environment - Apple] - archive.org - archived 2025-01-28</ref>

Line 95:

===Planned obsolescence===

*[[IPhone planned obsolescence incidencies|IPhone planned obsolescence incidences]] ~~- These definitely exist someone has to write an article.~~

*[[IPhone planned obsolescence incidencies|IPhone planned obsolescence incidences]]

===EOL repair blocking actions===

* [[Autodesk]]

===Digital discontinuation bricking===

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 *'''Planned obsolescence''' is the only type of self-destructive design that can be attributed as totally malicious; companies that institute planned obsolescence in their designs do so to ensure their customers buy more products. In addition invisible planned obsolescence can make consumers buy products they otherwise would not have bought with the knowledge of the dark practice.
-*'''EOL''' is less likely to be malicious as it actually does provide real benefits for companies; no one expects car early 20th century cars to remain supported or in production in the 21st century. There is room for malicious EOL decisions with the intent to make consumers buy more products.
+*'''EOL''' is less likely to be malicious as it actually does provide real benefits for companies; no one expects early 20th century cars to remain supported or in production in the 21st century. There is room for malicious EOL decisions with the intent to make consumers buy more products.
 **'''Discontinuation bricking''' is also less likely to be malicious as it can occur when a company goes out of business, but for when companies just decide to take the product offline entirely it is more questionable. There is definitely room for malicious bricking incidents to occur.
@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 *'''EOL''' will generate waste due to the decrease in reparability. If it becomes to expensive to repair an EOL product it becomes waste.
 **'''Physical Discontinuation bricking''' usual makes repair of the the device usually makes the device harder to repair.
-**'''Digital discontinuation bricking''' is even more severe in this regard due to dependence on remote servers, most consumers will not build their own server architecture for the sake of running a digital app or device.
+**'''Digital discontinuation bricking''' is even more severe in this regard due to dependence on remote servers, most consumers will not build their own server architecture for the sake of running a digital app or device. Additionally for the small subset of consumers that would be interested, they are rendered incapable of doing so since these servers often will use proprietary software, which often is not publicly accessible for personal usage.
 The result of self-destructive design is an inevitable harm to the environment even though many companies claim to be "sustainable" while engaging in the practice.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20250128190650/https://www.apple.com/environment/ Environment - Apple] - archive.org - archived 2025-01-28</ref>
@@ Line 95: / Line 95: @@
 ===Planned obsolescence===
-*[[IPhone planned obsolescence incidencies|IPhone planned obsolescence incidences]] - These definitely exist someone has to write an article.
+*[[IPhone planned obsolescence incidencies|IPhone planned obsolescence incidences]]
 ===EOL repair blocking actions===
+* [[Autodesk]]
 ===Digital discontinuation bricking===